A&H

IDFK and Red Card for DOGSO

zarathustra

zarathustra

RefChat Addict
IFAB posted the below to their Twitter account recently:

And it got me thinking, has anyone ever had this happen in one of their games, seen it happen in a game? (Not the exact situation but where a players gets aired card for DOGSO and the opposition get an IDFK)
 

Attachments

  • F3229F7C-DED2-4A58-9836-174FD88A0D90.jpeg
    F3229F7C-DED2-4A58-9836-174FD88A0D90.jpeg
    343.1 KB · Views: 68
The Referee Store
Never had it happen. But it's been this way along time. I remember a good 5-6 years a go a quiz question, I may have posted it on here, about a player playing in a dangerous manner that is DOGSO with the answer being red card and idfk. (Red card as no penalty awarded).
 
Had something that was very close to this the other week. Team A GK taking very short goal kicks to their CB (who was very good - would either pick a pass or dribble it out against inferior opposition). Puts ball down, casually rolls the ball with the bottom of his foot and walks away, in my mind suggesting he's taken the kick. CB doesn't move, so keeper turns round and kicks it again, no more than a yard. Blow whistle and awarded IDFK to Team B, who weren't closing down (nearest player 20 plus yards away) so no need for me to consider DOGSO.

GK and CB enquired politely and I explained, and they accepted the decision gracefully enough, and Team B scored from the subsequent IDFK. Not sure they'd have been so graceful if they hadn't been winning so easily!
 
zarathustra said:
IFAB posted the below to their Twitter account recently:

And it got me thinking, has anyone ever had this happen in one of their games, seen it happen in a game? (Not the exact situation but where a players gets aired card for DOGSO and the opposition get an IDFK
Click to expand...
Surely it depends on whether or not the attacker can get there? If the referee judges that the attacker cannot get to the ball in time, it’s not a red card for DOGSO, as you can’t score an own goal from a DFK or IDFK?
 
I'd really like a clear and mandatory signal to be adopted for players to go "the ball has been placed and the next touch with a foot will put it in play". I played a little Ultimate at uni and they had a system where after a foul/discussion around a possible foul/out of play, the disc either had to be held out to be tapped by a marking opponent, or "checked" against the ground. This allowed the pass count to start and made it clear that you were playing again.

Something similar like tapping the ball with your hand would be helpful in football I think, but this is probably a bit of a weird concept to be realistically adopted.
 
Not a bad idea--solves the stupid corner kick games, too

(Edit: typo had me suggesting it was a bad idea . . .)
 
Last edited:
zarathustra said:
IFAB posted the below to their Twitter account recently:

And it got me thinking, has anyone ever had this happen in one of their games, seen it happen in a game? (Not the exact situation but where a players gets aired card for DOGSO and the opposition get an IDFK)
Click to expand...
Yes, and we've discussed it at least twice on here, IIRC. I think I posted a video link to it the last time it was discussed.

In the incident in question, the AS Roma Women's goalkeeper was sent off for DOGSO on a "second touch" offence at a goal kick.
 
Just to clarify for myself - as the foul is technical, it's an IDFK rather than a DFK ie a penalty kick. But as it's a DOGSO it's a red card. Is that right? Are DOGSOs always red card?
 
MumRef said:
Just to clarify for myself - as the foul is technical, it's an IDFK rather than a DFK ie a penalty kick. But as it's a DOGSO it's a red card. Is that right? Are DOGSOs always red card?
Click to expand...
DOGSO is always a red card unless:
  • a penalty kick is awarded; and
  • the offence was an attempt to lawfully* play the ball.
*there was a bit of debate about on this site previously about whether attempting to unlawfully play the ball counts as an attempt to play the ball because the laws are open to interpretation. Handball never counts as an attempt to play the ball.
 
And the red card for DOGSO is only downgraded to yellow in these circumstances so as to avoid the imposition of a harsh double punishment for the one offence.
 
socal lurker said:
The rhetoric around the change was actually on the triple punishment—PK, red, suspension.
Click to expand...
Yeah, which was always a rubbish argument - a YC makes it more complicated for the match-day official and takes away both the send-off and the suspension.

Would have been a far easier solution to determine that the suspension won't be applied to this specific type of RC (you could have even said if the PK is scored) and see how that works, rather than adding complexity and making it a far more significant downgrade in one go.
 
GraemeS said:
Yeah, which was always a rubbish argument - a YC makes it more complicated for the match-day official and takes away both the send-off and the suspension.

Would have been a far easier solution to determine that the suspension won't be applied to this specific type of RC (you could have even said if the PK is scored) and see how that works, rather than adding complexity and making it a far more significant downgrade in one go.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think "triple" was always more rhetoric to make it sound worse by people who didn't like the sendoff. I think part of the issue was that DOGSO has never been good at differentiating between the honest foul and the cynical foul. The PA downgrade tries to do that, but I don't think it really succeeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top